| 7 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
There are a ton of opinion threads about whether or not you can put claws on your feet in order to get two secondary attacks while your hands are full. By the RAW, you can, and you get both secondary attacks just fine. But it's such a volatile issue that I still run a high chance of finding GMs who think you have to stand on one foot during your whole turn or something (even though Monks set a precedent of being able to use both feet and both arms over the course of a full attack action, one at a time).
So I am really hoping that we can get a developer or a designer or anybody to come in here and say yes or no to this. Even though the RAW fully supports adding a pair of claw attacks (in any number of ways) to your feet and then using them after you've used a two-handed weapon or the like, this issue is just so mired in people's feelings about it that without an official ruling, it's always going to be a source of conflict in my group and others.
The main problem you're going to run into is, everyone's game is different. Short of requiring a ruling for PFS, with everything else on Paizo's plate, getting an official errata/FAQ on "iffy" subjects isn't going to be high on the priority list. With the number of posts about it, Paizo knows that it comes up a lot. Coming in and asking for an "official" ruling usually doesn't get you one. The closest you might get quite honestly is in the "ask JJ" thread, BUT keep in mind some of what comes out of there is preference and doesn't make it to errata/FAQ so take it with a spoon of something or another.
Just because it comes up a lot, doesn't mean it needs an official answer. It just means you need to sit down and talk to your GM about how they are going to run their game. If the GM is okay with it, cool. If not and they aren't willing to work with you on it, play some other character concept or a GM willing to work with you on it.
I think that Its not an issue of 'can you put claws on the feet' you can. Im pretty sure the free claws that come with humanoids were intended to be on your hands though.
Its really reasily solved by spending 1 evolution point then theres no argument because the book says you can do it. That said though i think the intent of the claws on feet was for quadrupeds.
But the game doesnt make any extra stipulation.
Well now, I was planing on building a ratkin with toothy trait, sharpclaw feat, and tail blade and going into alchemist for extra limbs, tentacle attack and feral mutagen. Top it off with beastmorph granting fly and pounce, well I just might have to go 2 level dip into wild rager barbarian for the extra attack, gore attack, and animal totem claws on my feat...
Honestly this guy just keeps getting more and more redonkolus. I am now up to something like 10 natural attacks, 2 extra attacks, fly, pounce and sneak attack by level 12... Add in AOMF (anything) and this rat is a flying, killing ball of fur and fangs. Add in potion of greater magic fang, and potion of strong jaw, haste, and enlarge person all alchemical alocationed and I just found a new flavour of limburger cheese... Cheese that is sure to draw out the rats...
Where the heck is cheapy when you need him....
4 attacks at level 1
12 attacks at level 12 with only boots of speed and mutegen.
what is this world coming to?
Add in power attack and churgon smash and you can make 12 'free' intimidate checks a round...
Short of requiring a ruling for PFS,
That'd be my issue right there. GM's rule is pretty harsh when you play with a hundred different GMs with your one character. I don't want to build one way and then get smashed because somebody had an issue with it and there isn't even a forum post to back it up. RAW it works, but again, people are people.
Has any PFS GM ever ruled against a bipedal eidolon with claws on its feet and not on its hands? There is absolutely zero basis in the rules for doing so -- just common assumptions that may or may not match up with how the player of the summoner envisions the eidolon in question.
This is a ratkin alchemist (visectionist/beastmorph) 1-2, barbarian (wild rager/totem warrior) 3-4, alchemist 5-12, witch 13
Important feats, discoveries, powers ect
1-toothy trait, sharp claw feat, tail weapon, haste extract
2-feral mutagen (on your feet)
3-wild fighting (barbarian), extra discovery (vistigal arm)
4-lesser fiend totem
5-Extra rage power (lesser beast totem, on the 2 new arms)
6-vestigial arm
7-parasitic twin (not sure if this is legal, but it is another head)
8-tentacle discovery, fly 30 (average)
9-
10-
11-
12-fly 60 (good), pounce
13-prehensile hair
at 16 you can also gain demonic obedience (Lamashtu) to gain a secondary slam, real late, but interesting to note.
bite (1d6), slam (1d2), 2 claws(1d4), haste
Level 2 you get 7 attacks
2 claws (1d4)
Level 3 you get 8 attacks
Wild fighting (+1 on a full attack)
Level 4 you get 9 attacks
Gore (1d6)
Level 5 you get 10
Claw (1d4)
Level 6 you get 11
Claw (1d4)
Level 7 you get 12
bite (1d6) (if this is legal)
Level 8 you get 13
slam (1d3)
Level 12 you get pounce
Level 13 you get 14 attacks
hair (1d3)
level 16 you top out at 15 attacks
Teratoma (1d6)
Thats 13 natural attacks and 2 bonus attacks, 2 bite 6 claw 2 slam 1 gore 1 hair 1 teratoma, 1d2 2d3 6d4 4d6
Strong jaw turns that into 1d4 10d6 6d8
Interesting to note, you generally get 1 extra attack per level, tho if I was building this, I would probably space it out to gain better feats earlier.
What I'm actually talking about is something like using the Aspect of the Beast feat or the Maw-or-Claw Tiefling alternative race trait or anything else to add two claw natural weapons to an otherwise ordinary bipedal character who is not an eidolon. There's no indication they have to be on your hands, so by raw you can use both of them and also use a two-handed weapon in a single full attack.
The primary argument against it is that you need at least one foot to stay standing. While that's ridiculous and silly, because attacks are consecutive in a full attack, not simultaneous (you don't attack multiple times with your greatsword at the same time, you do them in order; so likewise you would obviously claw with one foot, put it on the ground, then claw with the other foot), it is still a very common thing that people think when they see a character using both his feet and his two-handed weapon in a full attack.
Basically, the core of this thread is: "This completely works by RAW, and the argument against it has zero basis in the rules, but it is nonetheless an extraordinarily common argument. Thus, the only way to avoid conflict is to get something, anything, with some weight."
I'm not asking for an addition to the FAQ or something. I would just appreciate it if anybody at Paizo could take four seconds to type "yes" or "no" to this.
:)
|
What I'm actually talking about is something like using the Aspect of the Beast feat or the Maw-or-Claw Tiefling alternative race trait or anything else to add two claw natural weapons to an otherwise ordinary bipedal character who is not an eidolon. There's no indication they have to be on your hands, so by raw you can use both of them and also use a two-handed weapon in a single full attack.
The primary argument against it is that you need at least one foot to stay standing. While that's ridiculous and silly, because attacks are consecutive in a full attack, not simultaneous (you don't attack multiple times with your greatsword at the same time, you do them in order; so likewise you would obviously claw with one foot, put it on the ground, then claw with the other foot), it is still a very common thing that people think when they see a character using both his feet and his two-handed weapon in a full attack.
Basically, the core of this thread is: "This completely works by RAW, and the argument against it has zero basis in the rules, but it is nonetheless an extraordinarily common argument. Thus, the only way to avoid conflict is to get something, anything, with some weight."
I'm not asking for an addition to the FAQ or something. I would just appreciate it if anybody at Paizo could take four seconds to type "yes" or "no" to this.
:)
Or describe it as a double jump kick, or do a handstand.
An animal like a lion,has four sets of claws, but it does not have four claw attacks; it has two claws (the front paws) and a rake attack for the back, represented by two more claws. You can take this in two ways; either the hind claws are claw attacks and should be treated as such, or that by nature it isn't reasonable to wield hind claws in any manner save for specific circumstances.
Claws are by default on hands. Synthesists/eidolons are an exception because they specifically say they can be put on feet. Note: Vestigial arm/tentacle/parasitic twin don't add natural attacks. Tentacle specifically says it can be used on its own as a natural attack, but can't be used to add attacks to your attack routine.. (unless they mean only about wielded weapons, but it isn't entirely clear)
Has there been an official ruling on the Totem Warrior archetype finally?
Claws are by default on hands.
Citation please.